My name is Steve Bauer and I'm a news producer for a tv station in Philadelphia. I'm working on a story about y2k and need help finding people in my area who are getting ready. I want to interview people who are stockpiling food and other necessities. If privacy is a concern I am willing to conceal your identity. I can be reached at (610) 668-5688 or e-mail me at sbauer@wcautv.com

-- steve bauer (sbauer@wcautv.com), January 05, 1999

Answers

Steve... see my response on Pastor Chris' Y2K forum.

-- Vic Parker (rdrunner@internetwork.net), January 05, 1999.

Steve,

I find it very disheartening to see 'newspeople' concentrating so much on y2k survival and preparation-type stories. Such sensational stories do almost nothing to help the public learn about the extent of y2k in all our lives.

Don't y2k articles about topics like Probability Failure, or Domino Effect make good stories? Or how embedded systems in oil wells in the Middle East or oil refineries in Venezuela and the US might cause them to shut down?

There are so many meaningful stories that news journalists (is that what you are?) can and SHOULD be getting out to the public .. I really don't understand how the basest stories always seems to be chosen.

-- Louis Navarro (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), January 05, 1999.

Steve, good luck finding someone. I echo Louis' sentiments. I'm curious and looking forward to your tv report, but I'd never volunteer to be seen on local news, especially not in Philly. This area is just too...conservative and non-technical to understand. I'd be viewed as an extremist wacko, even though I'm a moderate and blend in the crowd. Not one of my neighbors are talking about Y2K, let alone "community preparation" or stockpiling.

Makes me wonder though, how many like me there really are around here, it's just impossible to know, no one talks about it.

-- Anonymous (noway@philly.com), January 05, 1999.

You may be what a journalist should be instead of what most are, liars and whores of the press, but over the years watching the major media trashing the truth I am forced to pigeon hole you in the same manner as I have politicians. Not worth my time.

-- Ed (ed@no.mail), January 05, 1999.

Steve - You'll likely be greeted with rampant skepticism re your approach to the piece. Much media coverage up to now has been lackluster, at best, and slanted toward "look at the crazy with his food and his guns." Best short piece I've seen recently was New Year's Day on GMA. Nothing sensational - just the facts.

A proposal: pitch us the segment, if you would. What's the lead? Tell us the main points. How would "preparers" be presented? If non-preparers and no-big-deal types (DGIs, if you speak Y2K) are simply paired off with folks laying in 3 months of supplies and others building compounds (GIs), you'll have informed no one. If you so much as whisper about "planes falling out of the sky", you'll have proved you're just another hack.

Many folks here in the Yourdon forum have gathered the facts, done the maths, and concluded that it is simply not possible for all the critical systems to be fixed in time. We also know that the systems are tightly interlinked, causing failures to cascade, increasing the likelihood of "adverse outcomes." Folks like Ed Yourdon and Capers Jones have produced reams of evidence from the last few decades of IS projects to support the conclusion that there will be some serious failures.

Here's a radical thought: present the preparer side of the story only. Not preparing is easy and is the status quo; no need to present it. Talk about the difficulty in preparing, since it requires fighting a natural tendency to do nothing.

Anyway... So, whaddya wanna do here? You lookin' for serious folks who've come to well-reasoned conclusions and will be represented as such? Or are you just lookin' for some spicy visuals of stockpiled food? If it's the latter, fahgeddaboutit...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 05, 1999.

Hi Steve,

You asked the wrong question, from the wrong perspective.

Try again... ask what you can do as a mediaperson to present a rational well formulated investigative report about the consequences of Y2K for ordinary people.

Properly researched the story will make your reputation

-- Bob Barbour (r.barbour@waikato.ac.nz), January 05, 1999.

Steve: Most media coverage of y2k is total disinformation, unintentional or not. I just read a front page article by Knight Ridder published 1/2/99. This was their list of "worst case" scenarios:

7 You make a 3-minute phone call you make at 11:58 31 Dec 1999 and get billed for a 100 year call
7 On 1 Jan 1999 your high tech alarm clock thinks its 1900 and doesn't wake you up
7 Your new car won't start because it thinks you haven't serviced it in 100 years
7 Your credit card, which you have been a member since 1980, is declined at a restaurant because it thinks you haven't been born yet
7 Your VCR cant be set to record because it doesn't understand today's date

These are listed (with nice splashy color graphics) as the WORST CASE scenarios. Next to each of them is the "experts" MOST LIKELY scenario, where even the hint of calamity is totally absent.

Now, let me tell you something. I have over 15 years software experience. I used to program circles around other people. I have managed complex systems projects for 7 years. Now I am a consultant. Although I have been preaching to management for 4 years about the dangers of their exponentially increasing software complexity, y2k even caught me by surprise last July. What I had envisioned as a "plateau" that we would reach as systems got too complicated to maintain I now see as a great chasm. It's hard for me to understand how it could be this bad, so I know it must be hard for the average reporter. But the code doesn't care about that.

To begin to understand y2k, try reading the following:

Leading through the unknowns of Y2K

This is a synopsis of the problem out of a systems journal. I understand it completely because I live it, in the trenches. I showed this to my managers. Career engineers. Their eyes glass over before they are finished with the first paragraph. They immediately say "well, I don't think it will be that bad because of blah blah blah". Now think of what John Q. Public thinks of it.

I beg of you. Research the subject. Alert people to the upcoming crisis.

-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.

OK, I'm confused. Everyone always complains about the way the media covers Y2K, yet when the media comes asking for help you jump on them. Granted, since he's from Philly, he may be used to it (a deliberate attempt to bait a native Philadelphian).

I've exchanged emails with Steve. I have every reason to believe he is indeed a reporter intent on covering various aspects of Y2K. The story he is now preparing involves showing how some folks are preparing.

If you won't help the media, you have no right to criticize. Diane, I thought you had these folks better trained in responding positively to the media.

-- David (David@Bankpacman.com), January 05, 1999.

David - once bitten, twice shy...

Maybe this guy will do a Woodward and Bernstein on y2k,

maybe pigs might fly,

he's a big boy, I'm sure these replies are water off a duck's back for him.

Philly folks - keep an eye on Mr. Bauer's report, let's see if he can deliver the goods responsibly, not the usual whackos in the hills with their stockpiles, followed by talking heads trotting corporate platitudes about a bump in the road.

Sorry to be so cynical,

my 2 cents

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 05, 1999.

Steve,

Let me give you a link that may help you in Y2K reporting. It contains seven questions a reporter should ask when trying to evaluate the Y2K compliance of government agencies or businesses:

http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/journal.htm

Good luck with your future stories.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 1999.

Steve, read the Jan. issue of Vanity Fair to see how it has been done correctly in print. If you can do half as good as job on tv, then you will have done a valuable service.

I realize the VF article was reseached for 5 months, and you may not have that much time, but the research is already availble to you in this article.

-- Mike Roach (boxman9186@aol.com), January 05, 1999.

a,

Thank you for the link to the "Leading through the unknowns of Y2K" article. Author Margaret Wheatley is a real GI, and gives some ideas I can add to my repertoire of Y2k-explaining analogies.

already -- "Wow! She's really got it Steve: Most media coverage of y2k is total disinformation, unintentional or not. I just read a front page article by Knight Ridder published 1/2/99. This was their list of "worst case" scenarios: 7 You make a 3-minute phone call you make at 11:58 31 Dec 1999 and get billed for a 100 year call 7 On 1 Jan 1999 your high tech alarm clock thinks its 1900 and doesn't wake you up 7 Your new car won't start because it thinks you haven't serviced it in 100 years 7 Your credit card, which you have been a member since 1980, is declined at a restaurant because it thinks you haven't been born yet 7 Your VCR cant be set to record because it doesn't understand today's date These are listed (with nice splashy color graphics) as the WORST CASE scenarios. Next to each of them is the "experts" MOST LIKELY scenario, where even the hint of calamity is totally absent. Now, let me tell you something. I have over 15 years software experience. I used to program circles around other people. I have managed complex systems projects for 7 years. Now I am a consultant. Although I have been preaching to management for 4 years about the dangers of their exponentially increasing software complexity, y2k even caught me by surprise last July. What I had envisioned as a "plateau" that we would reach as systems got too complicated to maintain I now see as a great chasm. It's hard for me to understand how it could be this bad, so I know it must be hard for the average reporter. But the code doesn't care about that. To begin to understand y2k, try reading the following: Leading through the unknowns of Y2K This is a synopsis of the problem out of a systems journal. I understand it completely because I live it, in the trenches. I showed this to my managers. Career engineers. Their eyes glass over before they are finished with the first paragraph. They immediately say "well, I don't think it will be that bad because of blah blah blah". Now think of what John Q. Public thinks of it. I beg of you. Research the subject. Alert people to the upcoming crisis. -- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999. Steve: Most media coverage of y2k is total disinformation, unintentional or not. I just read a front page article by Knight Ridder published 1/2/99. This was their list of "worst case" scenarios: 7 You make a 3-minute phone call you make at 11:58 31 Dec 1999 and get billed for a 100 year call 7 On 1 Jan 1999 your high tech alarm clock thinks its 1900 and doesn't wake you up 7 Your new car won't start because it thinks you haven't serviced it in 100 years 7 Your credit card, which you have been a member since 1980, is declined at a restaurant because it thinks you haven't been born yet 7 Your VCR cant be set to record because it doesn't understand today's date These are listed (with nice splashy color graphics) as the WORST CASE scenarios. Next to each of them is the "experts" MOST LIKELY scenario, where even the hint of calamity is totally absent. Now, let me tell you something. I have over 15 years software experience. I used to program circles around other people. I have managed complex systems projects for 7 years. Now I am a consultant. Although I have been preaching to management for 4 years about the dangers of their exponentially increasing software complexity, y2k even caught me by surprise last July. What I had envisioned as a "plateau" that we would reach as systems got too complicated to maintain I now see as a great chasm. It's hard for me to understand how it could be this bad, so I know it must be hard for the average reporter. But the code doesn't care about that. To begin to understand y2k, try reading the following: Leading through the unknowns of Y2K This is a synopsis of the problem out of a systems journal. I understand it completely because I live it, in the trenches. I showed this to my managers. Career engineers. Their eyes glass over before they are finished with the first paragraph. They immediately say "well, I don't think it will be that bad because of blah blah blah". Now think of what John Q. Public thinks of it. I beg of you. Research the subject. Alert people to the upcoming crisis. -- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 1999.

a - We had a thread a while back about the CIO at Knight Ridder, one David Case. Case used to be CIO of Reader's Digest and is a DWGI of a very high order. Considering that he's in IS, he has made some absurdly pollyannish statements about Y2K. You'd think someone with experience with software projects would at least demonstrate mild concern about organization's ability to deliver on time and on budget. Apparently not, in this Case. *sigh*

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 05, 1999.

Apologies, Apologies -- I must have copied, pasted, and forgotted several times .... AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 1999.

But Sir Spam, you missed an "R" in there.

I'll help, but can't readily be there to be on TV. TV is entirely visual effects, mostly catering to a visually-locked audience. Few who follow that medium exclusively have demonstrated an ability to "mentally walk through" a sequence of abstract technical events - even those that threaten their comfortable existence. It takes a certain amount of training just to get someone up off the couch to look at the problem, much less look deeper than a 30 sec sound-bite.

As stated, I'm willing to help, but am skeptical based on what has been done so far by the TV media.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 05, 1999.

Steve,

Another reporter asked a question on this forum recently. He started a thread called "What SHOULD The Press Do?" The reporter, Rick, made the point that Y2K reporting is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. You can see it at:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000EbB

Again, good luck with your future reporting on Y2K...

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 1999.

Steve,

How about getting a lead on leadership? Maybe, some touchy-feely stuff?

"New leaders are committed to the truth and to seeing reality as it is. Dishonesty is systematized and normal in many enterprises. Organizations built on lies cannot see their reality. Denial and lying are especially dangerous in times of rapid change. New leaders tell the truth always and create a climate that allows, expects, and encourages others to tell the truth. Truth telling becomes a competitive advantage."

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 05, 1999.

Critt, I'm crossing my fingers

see drudge report

-- Beth Tams (lulu010101@aol.com), January 05, 1999.

Ok, here's a different angle...

From its beginnings, Television has beeen a "vast wateland." Its primary fuction has been as a tool to train people how to behave. Now, it's beginning to train people how to "stock up", with all the "sensationalized" stories that we seem to want to complain about.

If the sheeple can emulate that as easily as, say, Ally McBeal, Buffy and Dawson's Creek, is that so bad? Granted, there's only 360 days (really, half that) in which to find out...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 05, 1999.

see drudge report

Now I have to wash my hands...

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), January 06, 1999.

My 4 cents worth:-

From GN

"Television is a visual medium. It enjoys no big advantage over radio or audiotape when it comes to "talking heads" -- the TV industry's semi-contemptuous description of verbal communication. The "talking head" describes what is on screen. It turns viewers off. "Meet the Press" will never compete against Sunday pro football.

TV crews want something visual. When the ABC TV news crew came to interview me in Arkansas, I knew what they would love: a scene of me turning on the gas jet of the property's natural gas well. I suggested it, and they immediately agreed. This was what the editor showed on screen: the loud hissing of the gas and my control of the lever.

I did it on purpose. I knew what the medium has to have.

Here is a story about a man involved in y2k preparations. Notice what he says about TV crews.

A newspaper reporter's cookie-cutter for y2k articles is this: interview six people. One is an extremist for "nothing will happen"; one is a total collapse figure; four are in-betweens. Type it up, and it's done. It's quick, easy, and boring. It fills space, and no one writes in letters to the editor about biased reporting.

But TV is where most Americans get their information, and TV is inherently sensationalist. "If it is doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead." That's why TV will emphasize the sensational wherever possible.

Y2K survivalism is sensational. I call it survival home kooking. Show a TV crew a closet full of stored food, and you can structure what the audience will see.

A garage full of ammunition would be better, but nobody who has this is stupid enough to tell a TV crew.

That's why TV will eventually fuel the panic. Let a line of depositors show up at a bank to pull out their money, and local TV will run it that night. The next day, five banks will be hit. The national TV crews will show up the next week, hoping for an interview with a frantic depositor or two and a nervous banker. The banker can tell the crew, "There's nothing to worry about." It doesn't matter what he says. The lines in front of the banks are what the viewers will remember.

Which scene keeps the TV audience: a programmer going through line after line of code or some guy with a cabin in the woods, stocked with food, a Baygen wind-up short wave radio, and a shotgun over the door? Which will the viewer remember?

The "we've got it just about solved" crowd will have to be satisfied with print media. The survivalists will get most of the air time.

Scene after scene, month after month: the TV message of preparation for disaster will push millions of viewers toward panic. The voice- over may caution calm, but the scene on screen points to a crisis. The viewers will disregard the voice-over and go with the image. The image says, "Do this, or you're going to die in 2000."

Call it FUD-TV.

This is from the Detroit NEWS (Dec. 23).

* * * * * * * * *

WASHINGTON -- Gordon Davidson is an unlikely prophet of doom. With his mop of speckled gray hair and a quirky smile that never quits, Davidson looks more like an amicable ice cream truck driver than someone who spends his days warning communities of possible food shortages and blackouts.

But if towns and local governments don't act now, Davidson believes that's exactly what the Y2K computer snafu will beget. "Very reputable and solid people who understand the problem are thinking this could be serious," he told a roomful of 40 local activists who gathered one evening this week in the offices of the Washington DC- based non-denominational group he heads, the Center for Visionary Leadership. "How do we make sure everyone is adequately prepared?" . . .

A team of organizers trekked in from Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to recount a cheering tale of Y2K success. Curt Bury, a telecommunications consultant, described how the four awareness meetings he helped to organize drew a total of 130 locals-a respectable turnout for a small town of just 1,200.

In Tacoma Park, the city council has OK'd the creation of a Y2K group, and plans are being laid for a citywide forum in Washington DC next month. Fledgling organizations are taking wing in nearby Greenbelt and Friendship Heights.

"Unless everyone is prepared, none of us is prepared," Davidson says. . . .

But with 380 days left, there's scant time to organize. And 40 people from a metropolitan area with a population of millions are hardly a hallmark of widespread awareness and concern. . . .

The media aren't helping. Davidson complains that the TV crews that have begun to contact him are more sensational than serious. "What they were most interested in filming was people storing food in their houses," he says. . . ."

Link:

http://detnews.com/1998/technology/9812/23/12230209.htm

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 06, 1999.

Steve,

Id like to suggest that you check out what the American Red Cross, currently has to say about preparing for Y2K.

http:// www.redcross.org/disaster/safety/y2k.html

Then contact them -- information is on their web-site -- asking for the local Philadelphia Red Cross chapter. They might provide a balanced local story for you.

An interesting twist to your coverage might be how people in the Amish Community are preparing and are concerned about urban-dwellers flooding to their area, IF major problems erupt in the city. Still a big IF, but possible.

Another story angle is to locate a newly Y2K aware family, even a neighborhood, and follow how they go about preparing and even how they can learn to prepare using the internet resources. Perhaps installments?

You may also wish to contact FEMA. They are becoming quite serious about Y2K preparations. With a little digging behind-the-scenes, youll see an activated evidence of extreme concern on their part. Look especially at their meeting reports and memos:

http://www.fema.gov/y2k/

FEMA PROJECT IMPACT -- Making a Difference in Disaster Resistance -- An interesting and informative web-site on building disaster resistant communities:

http://www.fema.gov/impact/

FEMA GUIDEBOOK:

http://www.fema.gov/ impact/im_steps.htm

Very interesting FEMA Report Memo -- Regional Interagency Steering Committee Region V December 1-2, 1998:

http:// www.fema.gov/reg-v/1998/98r5n013.htm

Please contact our group again if you need any further assistance or responsible storyline ideas. And thanks again for asking.

Diane, in Silicon Valley, CA

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

I'm probably fooling myself to think you got this far down in the thread but check out this writer's perspective Steve.
My Y2K Problem By Erik Hedegaard

MoVe Immediate

-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), January 06, 1999.